Filters BETA
Rishi Sunak partly because they disagreed over immigration policy, told the Today progamme:
Unfortunately I voted against the legislation because I think it’s fatally flawed. I don’t think it’s going to stop the boats, and that’s the test of its efficacy.
Braverman said all the government’s attempts to tackle illegal migration were being thwarted by human rights law.
The simple fact is this is our third Act of Parliament that the Government has introduced in four years to stop the boats.
None of them have worked – none of them have worked because they are all still susceptible to the international human rights law framework contained in the European convention on human rights judged by, and adjudicated by, the European court of human rights in Strasbourg – that’s the problem, and that’s why I’ve been calling for a few years now to leave the European convention on human rights.
At the Conservative party conference in October 2022 Braverman famously said that it was her “dream” to see the first flight take off to Rwanda because she thought the policy would have a deterrent effect. She said:
I would love to have a front page of The Telegraph with a plane taking off to Rwanda, that’s my dream, it’s my obsession.
But this morning she revealed that she has revised hew view since then. When the Today presenter Mishal Husain reminded her of her “dream” comment, and asked if she would congratulate the PM when the first flight took off, Braverman replied:
The prime minister has pledged to stop the boats. That’s what we owe the British people and that’s the test. I’m afraid this bill, as drafted, will not achieve that goal. It’s fatally flawed …
One flight here or there, with a few passengers on it, will not provide the deterrent effect that is necessary to break the people smuggling gangs, to send the message to the illegal migrants that it’s not worth getting on a dinghy in the first place because you’re not going to get a life in the UK.
We need to have regular flights going to Rwanda with large numbers of passengers on them. That’s the only way to stop the boats.
Rwanda was “arguably safer than London”.
He said the country had made remarkable progress over the past 30 years. He explained:
Rwanda … has come back from the abyss, a country completely destroyed by the genocide.
It is absolutely extraordinary what the Rwandan government have achieved in all walks of life.
It is a safe country and indeed, if you look at the statistics, Kigali is arguably safer than London. So I have no doubt at all about the safety of Rwanda and the efficacy of this scheme.
When it was put to him that the Rwandan police opened fire on refugees in the country who were protesting in 2018, Mitchell said this “remarkable regime” had managed to look after “extraordinary numbers of refugees”.
He said the 2018 shooting was a “contested incident”.
And he said the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, placed refugees in Rwanda.
If the UNHCR thinks it’s right and proper and safe to do that, then I think we should be perfectly confident that the British government, in reaching the same conclusion, is also correct.
Mitchell has had a close involvement with Rwanda for years. In 2007, as shadow international development secretary, he launched a volunteering project in the country for Conservative activists, Project Umubano, which helped to change the party’s stance on development issues.
Rishi Sunak would use his press conference later to say how many people the government expects to sent to Rwanda later this year.
Mitchell said he was confident that the policy would have a deterrent effect on the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats. Asked ‘what kinds of numbers” the government was envisaging, Mitchell replied:
You’ll have to wait for the prime minister to set that out in the press conference later today.
Mitchell also implied Rishi Sunak would reveal what aircraft will be used to send people to Rwanda. Originally ministers were hoping to hire an aircraft from a commercial airline, but reportedly RAF planes may be used instead because private companies do not want to get involved.
Mitchell said it was for Sunak to set out “the robust operational arrangments which we have made to implement the will of the House of Commons”.
Rishi Sunak has decided that that the safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill must complete its passage through parliament tonight and he is holding a press conference later this morning partly so that he can publicly warn the peers who are holding up the bill that it is time to back down. But, as Pippa Crerar reports, peers are still holding out for concessions, particularly on that which would exempt Afghanistan interpreters and others who have worked for British forces abroad from the threat of deportation to Rwanda.
MPs and peers have told that they could be in for a long night. Both sides accept that the Lords will eventually let the Commons have its way, but peers are entitled to ask MPs to “think again” and, for political reasons, they will want to show that they have fought hard to get their way. That’s why it looks as though it might be a late night; if peers aren’t still up after midnight, people won’t be convinced that they were really trying.
Andrew Mitchell, the deputy foreign secretary, told the Today programme this morning that the government is not minded to compromise. Speaking about the Lords amendment that would exempt Afghan interpreters from deportation to Rwanda, he said this was not necessary because the government already has other schemes in place to enable those Afghans to come to the UK. He told the programme:
After the Afghan was was over, we set up a safe and legal route for those Afghans who had served the British Army, served Britain, the Arap (Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy) scheme, and 16,000 Afghans have been settled in Britain as a result. For that reason, we simply don’t think this amendment is necessarily … We’re not in the business of cluttering up the statute book with unnecessary legislation.
And Mitchell was even more critical of the Lords on the second issue on which they are digging in their heels – the Lord Hope amendment that would ensure that Rwanda is not treated as a safe country for refugees until the monitoring committee set up by the government confirms it is safe. Mitchell said that peers were being too harsh about the Rwandan judiciary and that some of what had been said was borderline racist. He told the programme:
I’ve listened to what has been said about the independence of the judiciary [in Rwanda], the judicial arrangements that have been set up on Rwanda. The Rwandan judge, Judge Rugege, is an enormously distinguished and respected international jurist. Indeed, he is an honorary fellow in law at an Oxford College.
Some of the discussions that have gone on in the Lord’s about the judicial arrangements within Rwanda have been patronising and, in my view, border on racism.
So we don’t think it’s necessary to have that amendment either, and that the necessary structures are in place to ensure that the scheme works properly and fairly.
Morning: Rishi Sunak holds a press conference in Downing Street.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in the West Midlands, where he is chairing a shadow cabinet meeting.
2.30pm: Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: MPs debate the latest Lords amendments to the safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill.
Early evening: Peers debate the Rwanda bill again. If, as expected, they insist on their amendments, “ping pong” will continue and the bill will return to the Commons for another vote by MPs. The process could continue into the early hours.
Also, David Cameron, the foreign secretary, is on a visit to Tajikistan.
If you want to contact me, do use the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
Source: theguardian.com
